Bizarre: NYT follows AAAS lead on “FOIA requests equate to death threats”

So the American Association for the Advancement of Science, thoroughly rattled by the American Tradition Institute’s FOIA requests of UVa and NASA — and even more so by the litigation forced by the institutions’ respective stonewalling — issued a board statement comparing FOIA requests of climate scientists with death threats. Really.

Naturally this caught the eye of the New York Times, which had a young lady contact us for comment. Right off the bat it was clear she, too, had been rattled by the horrors of our outrageous efforts to …see certain records the taxpayer has paid for and which are expressly covered by transparency laws.

Her stance was sympathetic to AAS’s to the point of temper.

She first reaffirmed a fancy for the apparently absolute truth that a FOIA request for climate scientists’ records is indeed no different than death threats allegedly made in Australia against scientists — sadly, if that’s true, they are now treated to what ‘skeptics’ have experienced for years, as I have detailed.

Well, actually, her disinterest in Greenpeace having created this little cottage practice indicated that this is true only for certain climate scientists’ records. Not the ones whose records Greenpeace is asking her for…that’s just transparency, good-government type stuff.

She continued by wondering, as such, do we condone death threats (really?) and, if not, why would we then also issue a FOIA?

Why that is particularly amusing, as opposed to sad, is that she was shocked by my assertion that Big Science/Big Academia’s objection to having laws that obviously cover their own actually applied to their own was of a part with Hollywood objecting to laws being applied to Roman Polanski. Apparently, by saying this, I was accusing Michael Mann of some heinous crime. Or something.

So see the below as I sent to her and, given the above, I expect you will not see in the story. Surely because it will be too busy explaining the tyranny of Greenpeace broadly filing similar requests. ATI’s statement is here.

I noticed no relation between our initiative and the Board’s rhetoric until they mentioned us somewhat incongruously.

The notion that application of laws expressly covering academics [is] an ‘attack’ on academics is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists calling application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. They rather lost the plot somewhere along the way.

The failure to mention the group that invented this series of requests, Greenpeace, informs a conclusion that this attempt at outrage is selective, and therefore either feigned or hypocritical. This is also new; their problem is quite plainly with the law(s), but it is a problem they have, over the decades of transparency and ethics laws applying to scientists subsisting on taxpayer revenue, heretofore forgotten to mention.

Opposition to such laws applying to them is rather shocking. But then, maybe not so much when you also note their failure to comment on scientists being outed as advocating the flaunting of transparency laws.

Finally, AAUP’s code of professional ethics indicates that efforts to manipulate the peer review process are impermissible. Given the overlap and for other reasons we assume this is something AAAS agrees with or at minimum accepts. But this, too, is insincere if such behavior is permissible — or at least, where just cause indicates further inquiry is warranted, it is to be ignored — if the party at issue is one who for various reasons the AAAS or AAUP et al. elevate or find sympathetic. In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so.

==============================================================

Below is the ATI statement – Anthony

==============================================================

Statement from American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center in Response to American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Misleading Accusations Against ATI Today

“we are concerned that establishing a practice of aggressive inquiry into the professional histories of scientists whose findings may bear on policy in ways that some find unpalatable could well have a chilling effect on the willingness of scientists to conduct research that intersects with policy-relevant scientific questions.”

Response to AAAS from ATI Environmental Law Center director of litigation Christopher Horner:

“I noticed no relation between our initiative and the AAAS Board’s rhetoric until they mentioned us somewhat incongruously.

“The notion that application of laws that expressly cover academics is an ‘attack’ on them is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists who call application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. They lost the plot somewhere along the way.

“AAAS’s failure to mention the group that invented this series of requests, Greenpeace, informs our conclusion that this outrage is selective, and is therefore either feigned or hypocritical. Their problem is plainly with the laws, but it is a problem they have had over the decades: That transparency and ethics laws also apply to scientists who subsist on taxpayer revenue. This they also forgot to mention.

“Finally, the American Association of University Professors’ code of professional ethics indicates that efforts to manipulate the peer review process are impermissible. Given the overlap, and for other reasons, we assume AAAS agrees with these principles or at a minimum accepts them. But this, too, is insincere if such behavior is permitted or ignored where just cause indicates further inquiry is warranted, as long as the parties at issue are those whose views the AAAS or AAUP sympathize with. In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so.”

For an interview with Christopher Horner, email chris.horner@atinstitute.org or paul.chesser@atinstitute.org or call (202)670-2680.

================================================================

Reaction is now coming in. Alana Goodman of Commentray Magazine writes in a piece titled

Of course, what the AAAS calls “personal information” actually appears to be public data. The group’s statement comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed against NASA by the conservative American Traditional Institute earlier this month, which is trying to force the agency to release information about scientist James Hansen.

And after years of watching climate change advocates demonizing global warming skeptics, it’s hard to have any sympathy for the AAAS on this issue. Not to mention, previously leaked emails have shown climate change scientists behaving in ways abusive to the public trust. Skeptics should absolutely work to expose any potential corruption in the global warming advocacy community — and the fact AAAS is so terrified of legal challenges is good reason to believe these skeptics might be onto something.

The alarmists are getting more desperate. Attacking in all directions like a trapped animal. It is petty, stupid and insane, but do not expect it to stop any time soon. They had a plan – a bad plan – but a plan. They see it slipping away now and they are unwilling to start over.

More on this here… “Personal attacks — including legal challenges and even death threats — on climate scientists have created a “hostile environment” that could result in a “chilling effect” on much-needed research…”

Ah, yes, I remember AAAS’s vigorous response to the Freedom of Information request that UVA honored immediately in the John Christy case. Also, their intervention in the abuse of peer review in for Lindsen, Soon and others. Some Fellows are just better than other fellows. But, I guess consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Beginning in 2002, Soon’s funding mostly came from oil companies, including Southern Co (SO.N: Quote), one of the largest coal burners in the United States, and the American Petroleum Institute, according to documents uncovered in a Freedom of Information Act request by Greenpeace and seen by Reuters.

Easier solution. Make it illegal for ANY taxpayer money to mingle with an organization that does NOT follow the FOIA rules. Any organization that violates or stonewalls FOIA is subject to the immediate incarceration of it’s board of directors until such time as the violation is remedied.

At the AAAS Annual Meeting in 2009 none other than Al Gore urged scientists to get involved politically about climate change. According to an AAAS press release, “An estimated 3000 people greeted Gore with a standing ovation….”
and
“In introducing Gore, AAAS President James J. McCarthy cited the impact of his work: ‘No single individual deserves more credit…for our public acceptance of climate science – public acceptance that has emboldened growing numbers of mayors, governors, senators, and presidential candidates to embrace the urgency of addressing anthropogenic climate change’.”
and
“During the next 50 minutes, the audience gave him rapt attention.”
and
“The audience responded with a standing ovation that lasted over a minute, until Gore left the room.”http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0215am_gore.shtml

She continued by wondering, as such, do we condone death threats (really?) and, if not, why would we then also issue a FOIA?
====================================
Four million years of evolution, 70 thousand years out of Africa, 10,000 years of culture and still the world is full of hopelessly stupid people.

Let me see. FOIA means: Freedom Of Information Act. So are the New York Times people against freedom to be informed? If this is so, than Chris Horner et al are Information Freedom Fighters fighting against journalistic Tyranny. I just wonder what the founding fathers would say to all this if they were still alive.

If the climate scientists were not so involved with a political agenda to keep their feeders, the politicians, happy, they would not have much to fear from a FOIA request. I have begun to question if there really is anything such as a “climate scientist”, or are they merely political operatives pumping out junk. I say this because their main objective seems to be the global control of societies by restricting everyone to a politically correct “energy diet” and carbon emissions ration. Totally evil in nature and intent.

Interestingly, the AAAS in its statement says “Science advances through a self-correcting system in which research results are shared and critically evaluated by peers and experiments are repeated when necessary.” This would suggest that “experiments” are carried out in the first place. Has anyone out there spotted any climate change experiments that have been performed?

The American Association for the Advancement of Science receives funding, indirectly of course, from George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Their goal is to bring down western society, by destroying western economies, through “climate change” legislation in order to pave the way for a One World Government or as Soros named it, a World Open Society.https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=moderated#comments-form
I am currently working on a paper that ties George Soros to the AAAS through the New America Foundation.

If the Australian “death threats” had been real, there would have been police action. It was simply a political stunt. “Death threats”, “phones being tapped”, “being spied upon” are hallmarks of scammers and nut cases.

There I was, thinking that scientists were mere mortals, subject to the same human shortcomings of fallibility we all seem to experience once or twice in our lifetimes.

Just goes to show you how much I know.

Seems that climate scientists, who have embraced the hypothesis of global warming, are to be considered infallible, somewhat akin to high priests, to be treated with reverential awe for their superior knowledge and intellect which transcends the simple thought processes of us mere mortals, led by the great and powerful Al Gore, bringer of wisdom for the ages.

In modern times, consumers are being absolved of responsibility, and are being able to pay less attention to detail; that’s why many are becoming “stupider”. Why else would there be a sign on a hairdryer saying “do not use while sleeping”, or one on a car sunshade saying “do not have shade in place while driving”?

Of course the “light of day” is akin to a death threat, for it exposes what these “climsci” people have been doing to waste your tax dollars and my tax dollars. They should all have to show their work and justify what they do–otherwise it should be considered theft, which is a felony. Imprisonment wouldn’t be out of line, methinks.

(Man, they’re getting really, really nervous about all these investigations, as if there was something terribly, horribly wrong with their “science”.)

” How dare you ask to know what we are doing with your money! Thats an attack!”

Seriously, can you imagine if a board of investors for a corporation asked to see where their investments were being spent, and the corporation just said ” No, that’s personal information”?
There’d be he ll to pay!

Not to mention, for the AAAS to condemn personal attacks and threats against them without mentioning the hundreds directed at people like Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and others, ( of which there is plenty of evidence of, Watts showing many examples, ) is nothing short of hypocrisy. And a dangerous example of one that is.

Short version: the AAAS doesn’t like the Constitution, the practice of real science, or the existence of an individual free thought capacity, so much so that it is the one making any significant “death threats” in regard to the questions surrounding Climate Science:

The AAAS seems to be manifesting some of that good old psychological “projection”, then morphed more strongly into gross “paranoia”, and an acting-out which then only results in stimulating even more of what it is reacting to in utter fear and a corresponding sense of threat to begin with – a mere lawful search for facts and an honest desire for the practice of real science; but which, predictably, instead results in the AAAS “justifying” its initial fear by progressively fueling a process that must result in an upward spiral of a truly unhinged positive feedback upon its perceived state of necessarily being increasingly threatened; so that eventually the AAAS instead thinks it is justified in making what is actually more of a truly significant “death threat” against its lawful sceptic “antagonists” – which I think is the cash value of what it just “argued” by making itself and Climate Science the victim instead of the obvious problem, starting with the law.

Strangely, this “thinking” sounds much like Climate Science’s operation of its own GCM Warming Models and, of course, its own quite threatening “scientific method” per se which, despite facts, always strives to escalate the fear that “it’s worse than we thought”, so that the rest of us alone simply “must do something really stupid like committing suicide or becoming enslaved before it’s too late, or else we’re all gonna die!”

What the AAAS claims Classical Liberals want it and Climate Science to do – merely as per our Constitutional law, but also according to the normal process of real science, and according to a normally functioning individual sceptical rationality – is really what they want to do to anyone questioning their Totalitarian “faith”, their need and desire for ultimate control; which is in turn apparently also based upon their collective failure to be in inherent possession of anything resembling a individual’s free-thought capacity or having any desire to adhere to the rules based upon its nature.

In other words the AAAS’s outburst can be seen as a manifestation of a pure bigotry on its part in regard to the “other”, one so strong as to be equivalent to what is usually thought of as bedrock “racism”.

Essentially, imo, the AAAS can be seen as speaking against the indiividual’s inherent free-thought capacity and his or her inherent right to be and think freely, and what this then translates to Constitutionally, and what it means in regard to the practice of real science especially concerning transparency and the need for replication and extremely sceptical, individual inquiry.

Therefore, it seems clear to me that the AAAS is the one making the significant “death threats”, and that everyone knows it, even the AAAS.

The FOI laws enacted over the past 30 years or so were designed by the left to create fodder for their constant legal challenges, which were used to enrich their causes and embarrass and humiliate their foes.

Now the folks who worked so hard to get these laws passed are the target of them. It does make for interesting irony.

Many ‘important’ people (Gore et al.) and institutions (BBC pensions et al.) have invested vast amounts in this carbon scam. They will fight tooth and claw to preserve the careers of these failed Nintendo (GCMs) players. The con was always going to be extremely difficult to pull off.

The American Association for the Advancement of Scientists is one of the many lobbying arms of Big Academe; it is not, and never has been, a scientific body. And if it’s true that Al Gore got a standing ovation in 2009, then even the “Scientist” moniker is suspect.

I can see a FOIA being perceived as a death threat to the institute, that is hiding things, that will bring about it’s head on the Congressional Budget chopping block.
Transparency behind fortified walls and bolted doors.
Must have hit a frayed nerve or two: Schrill-voiced responders nearly hit the ceiling.
“OMG, what do we do now? -send up smoke signals, and step on it- Got it”

So the sum. According the New York Time, information from a right-leaning institution, such as the Bush administration, is everyone’s right to know, even if that means putting lives in danger. But asking a left-leaning institution to follow the law is harassment and like a death threat.

You see what they do, right? If I said “everyone who loves to punch puppies and kittens eats at a fast food restaurant. Why do you punch puppies and kittens?” They equated an action they did not like to something really bad based on absolutely nothing and then right away try to put you on the defensive by accusing you doing the bad thing they invented. It is a trick they have learned to silence debate. The best thing to do is attack right back with facts, thereby putting them on the defensive.

Perhaps these FOI requests are not “death threats” but they may be the next worst thing … threats to the career of scientists who have been a bit less than honest in reporting facts or perhaps a bit stupid in the interpretation of facts. The rights demanded by our most progressive people include the right of scientists to feed at the public trough without direct accountability to low-life taxpayers.

I’m a retired Prof. of Biochemistry. I only regret that I’m no longer a member of AAAS so that I could cancel my membership. Alas, I retired before they started being so blatantly anti-Science. They should change their name so the acronym is AAA of anti-S (AAAaSS), in my not so humble opinion!!

She is a young girl, who is desperately naive, loves bunny rabbits and is therefore a fertile garden in which Greenpeace can plant its toxic seed.

Death threats? That is more than a bit of a stretch, but I suppose easily believable by the faithful of the AGW sect. All the threats I have seen in recent times is from alarmists, but I suppose that´s OK, because they are obviously fighting for truth, liberty and justice, as preached by a Gaddafi/Mann thinkalike.

If this ‘playing victim’ act doesn’t work, what next? If they have been watching Seinfeld reruns, perhaps they will claim to have cancer. Or maybe they’ll play the always popular ‘celebrity rehab’ card after being diagnosed with some appropriate addiction… maybe to models?

At the AAAS Annual Meeting in 2009 none other than Al Gore urged scientists to get involved politically about climate change. According to an AAAS press release, “An estimated 3000 people greeted Gore with a standing ovation….”

So, according to the AAAS, it’s perfectly OK for scientists to be self-appointed arbiters of policy and (conveniently circumvent the democratic process); yet in their “Statement” they whine:

we think it would be unfortunate if policymakers became the arbiters of scientific information and circumvented the peer-review process.

Too bad that the AAAS is so blind to the known shortcomings of “the peer-review process”.

It is a measure of how far Gore has fallen that almost all the scanty attention [his Rolling Stone] piece received focused on Gore’s criticism of what he sees as President Obama’s failure to lead on climate change. Gore, like the global green movement he champions, has fallen by the wayside. Despite terrible weather, despite tornadoes, droughts, food crises and high oil prices, the world conversation has moved on. […]

[and Mead concludes:]

It is a waste of time to talk science with Al Gore. It is a waste of time to listen to him at all. That, apparently, is what the world at long last is beginning to understand. The policy makers and the heads of state who only two years ago were ready to follow Gore up the mountain have softly and quietly tuned him out.

These days, he can’t even get his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone

LIttle wonder that we are seeing such desperate grasping at straws by the likes of the AAAS (and – to quote Mead – the green movement’s “handmaid press”).

The AAAS didn’t “equate” FOIA requests to death threats. They simply said that they had both happened and were perturbing scientists trying to do their job.

On the other hand,“The notion that application of laws expressly covering academics [is] an ‘attack’ on academics is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists calling application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. “
is explicit equating. Academics to sex offenders. Great.

As I’ve said before, this science “community” fussing and fuming, and complaining
about the nefarious radical right plotting, is all about protecting Mike Mann and
especially holding his early works sacrosanct.

Many, many folks in climate studies, together with reporters, lobbyists,
politicians and publishers have vested interests in making sure the “mountain”
of research using Mann’s works as a “given” hasn’t been built on top of a dunghill.

AAAS and their daughter publications like Science magazine have been
right there on top of the heap for years. Someone burrowing deep into the pile
to see what’s actually down there is worriesome… since they don’t know
what’s really there.

Hence the public histrionics and vigorous arm waving to drum up political
support for legal matters the University, the “Team” and the “Community”
can’t find any other way to contain or control.

Actually, this is just more of what the Politically Correct crowd believes. For example, they believe that criticizing someone for being in this country illegally is harassment. They believe that arguing that same-sex marriage is a moral mistake is harassment. They believe that saying “Yeeeeesh” when first served cold lox and bagel for brunch is harassment. Actually, they believe that it is worse than harassment and, in fact, is insubordination. After all, they are the all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful cultural elite. We have seen these people before. Adolf and all his long-term associates held exactly these views. The Kommissars who came to Czechoslovokia in 1968 spent hours explaining to each detainee just how much they looooved them. We can expect this same treatment indefinitely.

Comparing FOIAs to Hollywood justifying Polanski confused the questioner and gave her something else to focus on besides “why shouldn’t tax-payer funded scientists be asked to obey the law.”

Distraction and rapid subject changes are their game, they live in that world, it’s how they think. We won’t win with asimiles or metaphors, since once they have to process that new thought, they’ve lost the thread of the discussion and you’ll end up arguing over the comparison instead of talking about the real issue.

Better to stay focused on the immediate subject at hand and concentrate on bringing them back to it every time they wander off to pile on additional nonsense. Ignore the other nonsense, don’t get drawn in, try to keep them focused. These are not people who think linearly.

I just took a look at the New America Foundation and many of their members listed on their page are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR has a rather interesting history if you’ve ever read ‘Tragedy and Hope’ by Quigley…

Last I checked, science requires the publishing of the data and methods along with the conclusions so that others can derive the same or different results. So what some climatologists are practicing is NOT science, and AAAS is not acting as a science body.

People who work for public money – be they government or “private” education, must expect scrutiny. This is not harrassment, this is transparency.

How do these people ever earn a degree without knowing simple truths like this?

Too much is being made of this – we know the AAAS has for a long time now acted as a leftist front organization and we should expect no change in that behavior; and the New York Times has a history of selectively employing poorly educated and mentally retarded journalists, who will not question what they are writing and for what reason. In this case, the reporter did not know the difference between a FOIA and a FATWA – the former issued by a taxpayer’s representative – the latter by an ayatollah.

Now you understand why I would not even wrap a dead fish in the NYT and have dropped my AAAS membership after 25+ years. Dumped AGU a while back, and the AMS even before that. I refuse to participate or support dishonesty. I grew up in the NYC area. My dad bought every paper printed in NYC during the 1950s. That is 4 morning papers and 3 afternoon papers. The NYT was a garbage can then. It has not gotten any better with time.

Steve from Rockwood says:
June 29, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“the world is full of hopelessly stupid people.”
________________________________________
What might be more dangerous are the intelligent people who run parts of government and other institutions. No matter how smart certain individuals are, even a small group of geniuses, they can’t possibly manage the affairs of millions of people. The success of the free market is in the millions of little decisions made every day. No one, no computer, no algorithm, no regulations, could equal the collective independent wisdom inherently part of the free market.

The intelligentsia, or the elite running things now, can rationalize and justify virtually any action. That’s why they can’t be given much power. That’s why we need a government of limited powers. We need to strip them of the power they have wrongfully taken. They have abused regulatory authority to distort the market in favor of certain corporations willing to serve their interests. At this point, it is hard to find much that resembles a free market.

It has reached the point where they want total control. Over the air, over the water, over our food, over medicine, over what we say, and especially over our children. Naturally, these steps are taken for our own good, and for “fairness”. They claim a need to fix certain problems, but select a method that destabilizes the system they supposedly want to fix. Then of course, more fixes are required. This process continues until each targeted piece of our system breaks down. At that point they get to install what they wanted originally. And we let this process happen over and over again.

I spend a lot of time here, because WUWT deals with perhaps the most central piece of their plan, the climate-based excuse to control energy and thereby our economy and jobs. Through the mechanism of AGW, our economy and our personal lives will be controlled at a deep level. Our bright future will be replaced with darkness and hopelessness. For what? Power for a few. The scam appears to be profitable for far too many powerful individuals and businesses, at least in the short run. They have been bought off. However, the core of the green plan is rotten and is designed to break.

I just don’t know whether or not they realize they are killing their golden goose. Do the people going along with the green agenda believe we are too big to fail? Do the green leaders honestly believe in socialist utopian ideals? Perhaps those behind the scam just want the biggest piece of the carcass they can get and to hell with the rest of us.

Clearly, we need less government. We need more power and freedom in the private sector, mainly in small business. Regulations need to be eliminated that create regulatory markets for big business, and limit competition. A vigorous free market will create jobs. Government doesn’t do that. Abundant reliable inexpensive domestic energy will power our economy and grow the middle class. We have the technology to build a bright new future, but only if we are not limited by greedy power-mad bureaucrats and hidden elites. They need AGW to control energy and control us.

“The AAAS didn’t “equate” FOIA requests to death threats. They simply said that they had both happened and were perturbing scientists trying to do their job.
On the other hand,
“The notion that application of laws expressly covering academics [is] an ‘attack’ on academics is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists calling application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. “
is explicit equating. Academics to sex offenders. Great.”

* * *

Congratulations on destroying your own argument with your own words. So if the AAAS ( aptly named, I must add,) is really not equating transparency with death threats and personal attacks, yet another idea comparing the subverting and “pick and choose” mentality of what laws to obey based on who the offender clearly is, then you have shown the hypocrisy in your post, and is now invalid.

“On the other hand,
“The notion that application of laws expressly covering academics [is] an ‘attack’ on academics is substantively identical to Hollywood apologists calling application of other laws to Roman Polanski an attack on Polanski. “
is explicit equating. Academics to sex offenders. Great.”

No, the equation is between Hollywood apologists and those who apply FOIA laws. The NYT equated death threats and FOIA requests in the usual way by conjoining them in a sentence as follows:

“Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges [emphasis mine] have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and makes it difficult for factual information and scientific analyses to reach policymakers and the public.”

Of course, you could read the NYT as simply hysterical, as if they had written “He went to the store to buy milk, bread, and a life.”

To the AAAS Board of Directors and those who might agree with their statement:
Welcome to the real world you pompous, arrogant gits.
The age of information will knock you off your high horses in due time.
Your elitism won’t survive.
———————————————————
If the implications of this enchilada were not so worrying however, I would be laughing. Sadly, it seems though, in the information age, we appear to be moving away from rationalism. Sadly as well, the concept of simple respect has been thrown out and buried by power brokers. Campaign strategy modeled around hypocrisy and lies is sanctioned by many playing the big games. Truth be damned.
———————————————————
I’m disgusted.

Nick Stokes is always like that. He’s an apologist for what is wrong and will always defend bad practices. It’s his usual stye. He trawls from blog to blog defending all malpractices and bad practices by the pro-AGW climate science crowd and their cheerleaders.

It is stunning to see essentially no condemnation of the death threats here, and instead exuses and accusations (always anonymous, of course) that they are “political stunts” or that scientists are “playing the victim.” Regardless of your position on climate science or FOIAs or anything else, threats against individuals are never, ever acceptable. Imagine receiving just one such email, let alone several or on a regular basis. I hope those found to be making such threats are prosecuted to the fullest extent before something deeply tragic happens, which is the path all of this is on. If skeptics are to retain any legitimacy whatsoever, such tactics need to be clearly and loudly denounced.

Publicly funded scientists and field experts behaving as if sharing their data and methods is so horrible as to be considered harassment akin to death threats? The world has truly gone mad and we are all witness to it. This is not the mentally challenged among us mistaking the moon for the sun because their hangover hasn’t yet ended, this is the creme of the crop telling us that we cannot cross their moat from an outcropping in the tower lest we be branded as criminals.

…Its pretty pitiful when a reporter believes the FOIA is anything other than a positive.
———
Well, all pretense of journalistic integrity ended with the 2000 presidential election. Journalists have no use for FOIA and such tools when they’re free to just make stuff up. Since 2000, main stream journalism has given up all pretense of objectivity and become nothing more than a propaganda arm for the far left ideologues who control the Democratic Party.

Add the concept of an analogy, and what one implies in particular, to the growing list of concepts Nick does not understand. Not only does each new post from the head cheerleader decrease his own apparent level of intelligence, I’m thinking it knocks each reader’s down a notch as well. You really are not nearly as intelligent as you initially appeared.

Excuse me if I read your comment wrong, but it seems you haven’t read the article.

No one is saying that death threats are OK. But you seem to be painting all skeptics with a broad brush here. Don’t you recall the 10-10 video and similar alarmist propaganda, which approved killing kids for giving the “wrong” answers? Did you ‘clearly and loudly denounce’ those vicious ads?

The AAAS didn’t “equate” FOIA requests to death threats. They simply said that they had both happened and were perturbing scientists trying to do their job.

Perturbation from their job? Here’s the opening part of the statement:

We are deeply concerned by the extent and nature of personal attacks
on climate scientists. Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings
and ideas and makes it difficult for factual information and scientific analyses to reach policymakers and the public. This both impedes the progress of science and interferes
with the application of science to the solution of global problems.

So what is said explicitly here is that “legal challenges” (by which we all take to mean FOIA requests) have created a “hostile environment” that “inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas”.

So what it is saying is, FOIA requests are impeding the free exchange of information in the same sentence as saying that death threats are impeding the free exchange of information. In this manner, the statement is equating the effect on science from a death threat to the effect on science from an FOIA request. That is quite clear from the text, there is no interpretation neccessary there.

Now, what is the job of a scientist? I say a major part of the job of a scientist, particularly the altruistic kind seeking to determine how the world might end for all of us, is to freely exchange information and methods so that we all may be forewarned of what might be coming. It is not the job of a scientist to tell politicians what to do. Can we at least agree on that?

Now if part of the job of a scientist is to do this, what you are in essence saying is that the job of a scientist is akin to a death threat impeding the job of a scientist. Your argument is entirely circular.

On the other hand,
…
is explicit equating. Academics to sex offenders. Great.

There is a word I’m searching for to describe all of this blather from the warmist, I thought clericalism was close to what I wanted but technicalrighter saying “or FATWAH, as may be the case.”, may be closer.

“It is stunning to see essentially no condemnation of the death threats here, ……”
=============================================================

Uhmm, first, this post is about equating FOI requests with death threats. Secondly, it has been loudly condemned. But, sis, I’m not going to jump up and down proclaiming beating my wife is something I abhor every time some whine-bag fabricates a story about some fictional bogeyman……. If you check it, that’s the reason why most of us are here. The fact is, given their penchant to invent killers out of thin air, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale to find that they’ve once again done the same.

Are there some unsavory characters out there? Yes, there are. Does that have anything to do with skepticism? No, not a damned thing. BTW, how come the alarmists don’t loudly and profoundly condemn genocide? I’m shocked to see that it doesn’t occur on the alarmists blogs!

The New York Times? Wow! They are concerned about the release of information? You should have saved that quote from the book of Matthew on the Greenpeace post for this, far more appropriate. The information being requested is being requested through legal channels. It is not information stolen from a US Government computer marked secret and leaked to your paper by a rapist running a wiki website. I am really at a loss for words. It transcends hypocrisy. I hate to use ‘doublethink’ because Orwell is so over-quoted, but is there a better example of it?

It is stunning to see essentially no condemnation of the death threats here, …

There are no death threats in the subject matter, just FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. That doesn’t mean the joke “If I told you, I’d have to kill you” or the more fitting but absurd “Tell me first, then I’ll kill you,” it means merely “I asked for the data nicely, now I’m asking with the force of law.” Laws which do not include the death penalty.

As for the Australian death threats, those have been covered in several previous posts. Please look them up.

“……………. It is not information stolen from a US Government computer marked secret and leaked to your paper by a rapist running a wiki website. I am really at a loss for words. It transcends hypocrisy. I hate to use ‘doublethink’ because Orwell is so over-quoted, but is there a better example of it?”
===================================================================

I find Orwell entirely apt when referring to alarmists and the complicit MSM.
They are totalitarian misanthropists, and I believe, exactly the sort Eric Arthur Blair forewarned us about.

You seem to forget the “death threats” Phil Jones got a year or so came from
vehement AGW supporters reacting to his “no significant warming” statement.

There seems to be no substance to the allegations of “death threats” coming out of
Australia, where the Government’s plan to impose an open-ended carbon tax on it’s
citizens and businesses. The Australian policy is based on converting Mike Mann’s
early research and it’s subsequent spawn into a political mansion of economic
controls with a scientific fascade.

Death threats and threats of violence are to be shunned, as are likening coal cars
on a railroad line to the “death trains” terminology as used by Jim Hansen.

You are ignoring the obvious use of a rhetorical device with your nitpick.

“Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings…”

The FOIA requests are being equated in the sense that they have an equivalent effect, which may have been inappropriately articulated, but the association is definitely there. How would the FOIA inhibit the ‘free exchange of scientific findings’?

It would be interesting to see her response if she had been told, “Yes, we filed to see the data under an FOIA request. That’s because we feel that the scientists may be downplaying global warming to avoid panic, and things are really much worse than they are saying. The fate of the world could be at stake. We must know the truth to save it.”

I suspect it would short-circuit what few cerebral connections she may have.

New York Slimes. There is no lower standard in accuracy or reporting. Advocacy is their only function, which in itself is not illegal of course, however they describe themselves as a newspaper of record. That is a lie.

If they didn’t hide their data and analysis, there would be no FOI requests and there it would be very simple to comply with them by simply pressing a button.

Science is not based on hiding your data. Only fake science is.

Are there patents in climate science? Is someone commercializing intellectual property in climate science? Are raw temperature records supposed to be secret? Are we not supposed to know what the temperature was in our city yesterday, 100 years ago?

The purpose of climate science is supposed to be about telling us the truth and the facts about the climate.

It is slamdunk case that we should send out 100 FOI requests for every climate science paper, interview and statement made where the data backing that up is not readily available to everyone who wants to see it.

Even to this day – we do not know what the real temperature record is. Shouldn’t that bother everyone concerned with this issue.

Hi David Appell. Howzit, bra? You are well I trust? We know death threats very well, having been on the receiving end on numerous occasions. Amongst other deplorable tactics from your camp. I would be very happy if you all just reveal the uncertainties to the public of the “science” behind AGW. That is a very basic component in most of the hard sciences, isn’t it? Not asking much, am I? It would be a great way to still the presently troubled waters. Nice chatting with you, buddy.

In reading the AAAS statement I did not see them “equating” FOIA requests to death threats. Apparently, however, the NYT reporter incorrectly concluded that if one “condones” FOIA requests they must also condone death threats. It is perplexing a reporter would consider FOIA requests to be inappropriate or abusive. This doesn’t give me a lot of faith in the media.

Furthermore, why does the AAAS consider a request for data to be a request for personal information? Is the AAAS only concerned when FOIA requests are initiated on the basis of suspected fraud by the researcher? Or, does this also apply to academics who request the data in order to replicate the resarch results but are denied and so ultimately file a FOIA request?

To quote the AAAS release: “The progress of science and protection of its integrity depend on both full transparency about the details of scientific methodology and the freedom to follow the pursuit of knowledge.” Brilliant! So, when will the AAAS begin to uphold this philosophy?

And even more evidence: several responses to my original comment are examples of what I’m talking about: excuses for the death threats, or jokes, or comments that include include the word “but” This is exactly my point — there is no BUT. The threats are inexcusable no matter what, regardless of what any scientist or journalist or blogger or filmmaker has ever said (or didn’t say). They are inexcusable and unacceptable, period. Examples:

Smokey @ June 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm
“No one is saying that death threats are OK. But you seem to be painting all skeptics with a broad brush here. Don’t you recall the 10-10 video and similar alarmist propaganda, which approved killing kids for giving the “wrong” answers? Did you ‘clearly and loudly denounce’ those vicious ads?”

James Sexton @ June 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm
“The fact is, given their penchant to invent killers out of thin air, it wouldn’t be beyond the pale to find that they’ve once again done the same.”

Amino Acids in Meteorites @ June 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm
“This silliness of death threats is showing people that global warming is not real. It is a naked overplaying of their hand.”

R.S.Brown @ June 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“There seems to be no substance to the allegations of “death threats” coming out of Australia, where the Government’s plan to impose an open-ended carbon tax on it’s citizens and businesses….. Death threats and threats of violence are to be shunned, as are likening coal cars
on a railroad line to the “death trains” terminology as used by Jim Hansen.”

Imagine receiving just one such email, let alone several or on a regular basis.

Yes, David, just “imagine” the AAAS’s paranoiacally, or at least diversionally imagined “death threats”, unsupported by any evidence, that’s the ticket and you fell for it! While you ignored the AAAS’s demonizing of legal, rational requests for information on the part of citizen sceptics, who are thereby made equivalent to rogue assasins; and who, by a connoted or suggested implication, are made to look like they deserve some kind of vigilante-like violent interdiction, almost precisely because a legal basis for handling their alleged infraction has otherwise not been established by the accusers, who apparently have not brought any such “death threats” to the attention of the authorities while they complain and obsess about them elsewhere in public!

This is a well-know propaganda tactic at the least, and at most betrays a paranoiac intimation that citizen sceptics deserve the same violent retribution the allegedly beleaguered AAAS and Climate Scientists imagine to be directed at them.

Just imagine yourself, David, what some people might then find it fitting to do, especially if also egged on by other demonizing propaganda tactics such as the “10 – 10” blow up simulation of anyone not towing the CO2 = CAGW line. Psychiatrists, and similarly other people such as family members or acquaintances, have actually been murdered as a result of their patients having incorporated them into the imagined “plot against them”. Still others can “take a hint”.

So, David, why don’t you condemn those kind of demonizing fabrications, diversions, and intimations for action instead of wasting your mind inappropriately on legal requests by non-violent citizens sceptics, exactly as the AAAS and the NYT reporter did, which, after all, is one of the main points of Christopher Horner’s response above?

You seem to think that every time an action (already condemned by the majority of posters here) is brought up, we should be spending our time condemning that action and not address the context in which that action is exhumed. Your very first quotestarts with a statement clearly saying that no one is condoning the death threats, which have previously been condemned. The topic of this post is not the death threats, but the self-victimizing tone of the AAAS statement. The statement released, in the important part, is thus:

“Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings…”

The inclusion of ‘legal challenges’ refers to the FOI and FOIA requests filed by people who have been stonewalled in direct violation, not only of the scientific method, but also of their respective countries’ laws. To assert that any data or information legally available under the so named “Freedom of Information Act” should not be freely available is absurd.

Furthermore, the ‘free exchange of scientific findings’ should be impeded only by the intervention of outside forces. The government funds institutions under the pretense that scientific knowledge is a public good. A public good is one that is non-excludable (can be consumed by anyone with the capability) and non-rivalous (does not diminish when consumed). To have to assert FOIA rights in order to apply the scientific method to scientific findings violates the spirit of the Keynesian economics that so many people these days seem to value. It also DIRECTLY impedes the ‘free exchange of scientific findings’.

Additionally, when evidence extrinsic to the scientific findings makes the scientific finding or process look suspect, the process deserves to be examined. The lack of trust in a process is the founding ideal for many government institutions (and rightfully so). The SEC was founded to protect investors from sham stocks. The PCAOB was later created to protect investors from sham audits. The FDA was created when FDR wondered if he was eating finger meat. The USDA was really founded with the purpose of diffusing agricultural knowledge to help secure our food supply.

FOIA was founded to make sure that taxpayer money was not used for shadowy purposes. This includes foreign espionage, domestic espionage, making political advantage, securing votes in public voting bodies, preventing bribery, forestalling corruption, and providing a general sense of clarity to the bumbly jumbly mess that is public process. To say that asserting the FOIA law to publicly funded research, funded under the auspices of that knowledge being a public good, is somehow preventing the ‘free exchange of scientific findings’ is so backwards that I lack a better term than Orwellian. Perhaps you should study the things that have been released because of the FOIA? Try “Operation Northwoods” for one example.

If you are really that concerned about incentives to do research, than I suggest that you examine the case of Nikolai Tesla. An innovator who did not have the graces of modern subsidy to his research.

I expect that you will publish a full retraction (or at least this comment with a link to this thread) on your blog, which currently paints a sadly cherry-picked picture of the full range of responses here to the death threats.

David Appell, your lack of logic is staggering. Because sceptics decry death threats and give example of alarmists using the implications of death threats, you excoriate those sceptics them for mentioning death threats.
If you check out the ‘death threats’ alleged to have been made to scientists in Australia, one was conflated from remark in a conversation and the other was a piece of imaginative ‘remembering’. Neither was ever reported to the police. Both seem to have been conjured out of not very much by alarmist politicians who seem to regard talk of others making death threats as a useful political tool.

It is stunning to see essentially no condemnation of the death threats here, and instead exuses and accusations (always anonymous, of course) that they are “political stunts” or that scientists are “playing the victim.” Regardless of your position on climate science or FOIAs or anything else, threats against individuals are never, ever acceptable. Imagine receiving just one such email, let alone several or on a regular basis. I hope those found to be making such threats are prosecuted to the fullest extent before something deeply tragic happens, which is the path all of this is on. If skeptics are to retain any legitimacy whatsoever, such tactics need to be clearly and loudly denounced.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

The post is nothing to do with death threats per se. Of course nobody condones such incidents where they genuinely happen, but such cases are few and far between, as far as can be established. The recent reports of death threats in Australia have been shown to be a falsehood, but were condemned at the time they were discussed. But this whole thing is a side-issue to the discussion at hand, which is about the chutzpah of the AAAS (and others) in suggesting that use of a legal instrument (A FOIA request) is the same as a death threat.

If you want to read about death threats, google “greenpeace we know where you live” (without quotes). Come back when you’ve followed that up and I’ll give you some more things to search for.

Even Mann’s official hagiographer, David Appell, is here to do his Master’s bidding. Even at this distance, I can smell fear.

There can and should be no personalized threats of physical violence against Michael Mann personally. That would be totally outrageous and wrong.

But I reject utterly that perfectly valid and legal FOIA requests on Mann’s UVA emails constitutes, or can be equated to, “death threats”. The only threat is to Mann’s academic career should he be found to have engaged in a persistent pattern of serious research misconduct.

We already know that the original Hockey Stick was faked and that Mann deliberately withheld results of tests showing his reconstruction was not “robust to the removal of … dendroclimatic proxies” and that he lied to the NAS panel, amongst others, about calculating R2 tests that showed no statistical skill.

All of the confected outrage over the FOIA requests shows is that Mann is deeply worried about the content of those emails and that some in the AAAS leadership are worried that a major source of political capital in climate change hysteria might wither on the vine.

Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and makes it difficult for factual information and scientific analyses to reach policymakers and the public.

But that’s exactly the purpose of the FOI requests, because the climate science cabal refuse this very openness.

On reading the AAAS statement I couldn’t help wondering if the AAAS Directors had actually read the Climategate emails regarding tampering with the “peer-review” process. If they have not read them they are incompetent. If they have read them this “statement” indicates they are corrupt.

David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 11:23 pm
And even more evidence: several responses to my original comment are examples of what I’m talking about: excuses for the death threats, or jokes, or comments that include include the word “but” This is exactly my point — there is no BUT. The threats are inexcusable no matter what, regardless of what any scientist or journalist or blogger or filmmaker has ever said (or didn’t say). They are inexcusable and unacceptable, period. Examples:………..

________________________________

To illustrate the point of why we all do not find it necessary to repeat the obvious, that death threats are highly offensive, I will ask you a question.

Why has David Appell not condemned the pedophilia alluded to in the Polanski reference?

Folks, Appell’s MO is to feign concern, then provoke responses, then use those responses to write a post with those responses feigning his “outrage” on his blog that only gets a few reads. There’s little chance he’ll respond with anything substantive nor will he cite actual death threats as has been requested. He’ll just churn out an article critical of WUWT and everybody here while at the same time believing what he’s complaining in about. He’s done this again and again, in my experience he’s not reachable.

For the record, I don’t condone death threats or threats of violence, but I’ve yet to see any that have been substantiated. Smokey makes a good point, where was Appell when 10:10 was exploding children? I don’t recall him condemning it or any of the other stupid and hateful things that have been done in the pursuit of the cause. Goose, gander and all that.

An entirely self-consistent position as I see it:
Climate data is for climatologists eyes only, the rest of us can rely on their expert opinion.
Freedom of information is for journalists eyes only, ditto the above.

David, you pointed out some rebuttals, but no death threats. So how can one condemn what is not there? Until you can show us where there are any death threats (not allegations of “there are death threats” but actual death threats), I see no reason to condemn nothing. for that is what you are asking. You want us to condemn nothing?

Out of curiosity, I wandered into the strange world of David Appell’s blog. He is making the same illogical noises there that he is making here. He probably wonders why there are no comments, but there is no way I for one would bother after seeing his weird sample laid out for inspection here.

Some common sense never hurts. If I worked in a university in which death threats were suddenly showing up in my emails or as phone messages I would immediately contact my department head and they would immediately contact the police. The police can easily trace emails and phone messages.
Is this happening? If not, there are no death threats, because not even AGW scientists are that stupid (to not pursue real death threats through proper channels).
No person should ever have to live under the threat of death in a free country. And if anyone should ever feign death threats simply to draw sympathy to themselves? That is unforgivable.

Folks, Appell’s MO is to feign concern, then provoke responses, then use those responses to write a post with those responses feigning his “outrage” on his blog that only gets a few reads.

Yes, he even has a degree in “Creative Writing”, so there’s that to explain whatever he produces, perhaps along with George Soros and the like? Speaking of money, it’s waaay past my time to contribute here!

chris b says: June 30, 2011 at 5:26 am
“So, David Appell, and Nick Stokes are Concern Trolls”
Huh? From your link:“A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold.”

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
==================================================
Nailed it. As Anthony points out, this is what he does…… as do most alarmists. Create a strawman, and then set out to show how wrong people are by inadequately responding to the strawman. Which, to me is hilarious, because of his inability to appropriately respond to our comments. Witness his inability to properly context the comments from,
Smokey @ June 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm ,James Sexton @ June 29, 2011 at 7:27 pm, Amino Acids in Meteorites @ June 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm, and R.S.Brown @ June 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm

As Anthony states, he’ll probably write something nasty about us all here, but, the fun part about this game that he and others play here, is the traffic! While David may get high-fives from both of his readers, hundreds if not thousands, have been able to witness the flaws and weaknesses of an alarmist perspective. They have been able to witness the intellectual void, moral vacancy and the hypocrisy of the alarmists. Better, they get to witness the strengths of the skeptical perspective. (I actually enjoy it when they come to play this game.) Its a win-win for the skeptical camp. :-)

You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.

How can anyone not see what Climate Change is doing right now? Look at the droughts, heat and flooding in the mid west. We need to try our best to stop this. Stop listening to people that were hired by Oil companies to mislead you.

I disagree. Appell doesn’t try to pretend he is in agreement with blogs like WUWT, nor does he post anonymously (which means he can afford to, lucky him)

Appell’s basic MO is to stir things up by making specious claims to motive, then he gets replies which he puts on his own blog with his own tornado-like spin. On his own blog, his comments are an extension of his inflated ego and desperate need for importance – comments are heavily censored, Appell rarely apologises for clear mistakes, flattery gets you everywhere.

The correct term for Appell would be “seagull”. Flies in without notice, sh*ts over everything, flies away.

With all due respect, Mr. Horner needs to take a writing class and learn to write clearly. The language he uses in his email is so confusing that few would actually bother to try to interpret all that he’s trying to say, and even fewer would bother to take him seriously.

The last line is probably one of the clearest: “In Mann’s case, if our review of his documents which belong to the taxpayer also happen to exonerate him from the suspicions that have arisen, we will be the first to do so,” and it’s still a mess. “We will be the first to do so” means what, exactly? Exonerate him? The documents would be doing that. Drop the “suspicions” perhaps? Not quite what he says though. Admit that the “suspicions” are baseless? Probably what he means, but who can really tell from such a mixed up sentence?

He’s been in DC too long I suspect.

Why not: “If, in our view, Mann’s taxpayer-funded documents fail to confirm our suspicions, we will be the first to say so.” (Unless of course, that’s not what he meant.)

And the rest is far worse. DC gobbledygook. Yes, I can read and understand what he wrote, but why speak in tongues when you’re trying to make a case?

“If I say that the US suffers from tornadoes and traffic jams, that doesn’t mean I’m equating tornadoes and traffic jams. But that’s the logic of this headline.”

It’s amusing watching you tie yourself into knots. Your analogy is incomplete. The article does not just say the climate scientists receive FOI requests and death threats. It says specifically that both lead to the same result – a hostile environment. To continue with your facile analogy, you would have to say that both tornadoes and traffic jams result in the same outcome, which is clearly false. It is also false that FOI requests should lead to the same outcome as death threats. But when you consider in addition, that juxtaposition of an innocent term with a toxic term is a well used rhetorical device, the only conclusion to be drawn is that such equivalence of meaning was deliberate and intentional.

You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.

That’s interesting, Chris. Who are these oil-funded non-science guys? I’m highly sceptical about CAGW, but sadly I’m not funded by anyone to hold my views, much less the Oil industry. I’m not a scientist, but that doesn’t make me (if I interpret what you mean correctly) anti-science. I probably have a better grasp of science than 95% of the population, better on the topic of CAGW than 99%, and that latter almost certainly more than everyone I know personally, most of whom don’t think about it at all but just parrot what their daily newspaper or the man on the TV told them to think.

The real debate isn’t easy to follow. There is a lot of information, and there is a lot of boillocks spoken by all sides of the debate, but sorting the wheat from the chaff is only the start. If you really want to know what’s going on, rather than just standing on the sidelines cheering on your “team”, you have to get down and dirty reading scientific papers, even those which disagree with your preconceptions. *Especially* those which disagree with your preconceptions. That’s what I did, and that’s how I went from true-believer to almost complete disbelief in a handful of years – accelerated recently by Climategate and the aftermath.

But as an aside, what would be wrong with accepting Oil industry money, provided it doesn’t change the outcome of your research? Greenpeace certainly don’t mind taking it – what was it at last count? $650 million to Greenpeace from BP alone, if I remember correctly? It might have been more than that. Oh, but that’s probably OK, because greenpeace are “nice” people, whereas those sceptics are evil because … because … well, just because. Yeah, right.

In any case, sources of funding are compeletely irrelevant. The science either stands or falls on it’s own merit.

But please don’;t take this as discouragement. Stick around, keep asking questions, and be prepared to listen – and give proper consideration to the answers you get.

@Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
“You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies. This is a serious situation where kids future’s are at stake.

How can anyone not see what Climate Change is doing right now? Look at the droughts, heat and flooding in the mid west. We need to try our best to stop this. Stop listening to people that were hired by Oil companies to mislead you.”

Science is not from the heart, but from the head. A lot of things in science would not be considered “nice” if done by a human, yet that is the reality. You are free to believe anyone you want, but it is not science when anyone “speaks from the heart”.

“How can anyone not see what Climate Change is doing right now? Look at the droughts, heat and flooding in the mid west. We need to try our best to stop this.”

Chris, do you believe that any of these events you allude to are any worse or more frequent than at other times in history? If so, why? What databases have you consulted to reach that conclusion?

And following on, you say we should do our best to try and stop this. But how do you propose to stop the climate changing or are you simply parroting the squawkings of Hansen and Greenpeace? Do you really believe that tweaking the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere will have any measurable impact on globally averaged temperature?

I am interested in your opinions, because I hear this kind of hand wringing from people who generally don’t have any idea of what they are talking about.

I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason. He is an educated man that speaks from his heart, and has been alerting us about Global Warming since the late 80’s.

It’s sad that sites like this one have drug his name into the mud. From what I understand, his models have been current, and we’re currently still warming. Why people say we stopped warming in 1998 I do not know.

The 2005 hurricane season and this past spring are signs of what the future holds for us if we don’t get off fossil fuels.

I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason. He is an educated man that speaks from his heart, and has been alerting us about Global Warming since the late 80′s.

It’s sad that sites like this one have drug his name into the mud. From what I understand, his models have been current, and we’re currently still warming. Why people say we stopped warming in 1998 I do not know.

The 2005 hurricane season and this past spring are signs of what the future holds for us if we don’t get off fossil fuels.
==================================================================
Chris, I’d ask you to get current on the science if you’re going to speak about it. You ignorance(I don’t mean that as an insult, but, rather an observation) is telling.

I’m gobsmacked that anyone choosing to link to his Facebook would so willingly display such ignorance. But, I’m never ceased to be amazed by alarmists. In the 3 short paragraphs, briefly discussing 3 entirely different points, you managed to get absolutely nothing correct about any information you offered.

Hansen’s models are so far off, even he admits they are wrong. Ironically, he blames our aerosol emissions as the reason why he was so far off in his estimates. (We are presently cooler than his best case CO2 emission scenario.) You are free to believe what you want to believe, but regardless of what people say, posterity and history shows that Hansen was entirely wrong. We’ve had 23 years. He’s not ever going to be right.

I really don’t care what he speaks out of,(heart wasn’t what I was thinking, but oh well) he’s wrong. Its proven. Its over. And, sis, no, no we’re not still warming. That’s pure unadulterated fabrication.

Your last fantasy point…… you really have to go back to 2005 to say warming is causing hurricanes? Oh, my. Sorry, hurricane frequency and energy is sharply declining.
Now, you may believe this is just opinion, but it isn’t. Its factual, backed up by real math and real science.

Now, I’ve got things to do, but I’ll be back to check to see if you’ve got anything that refutes what I have shown, or if you have any questions, I’m sure some of the other nice folks here would be happy to enlighten you further. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to educate just one of the masses.

I’m not up to date on my science, but I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason. He is an educated man that speaks from his heart, and has been alerting us about Global Warming since the late 80′s.

It’s sad that sites like this one have drug his name into the mud. From what I understand, his models have been current, and we’re currently still warming. Why people say we stopped warming in 1998 I do not know.

The 2005 hurricane season and this past spring are signs of what the future holds for us if we don’t get off fossil fuels.

Ok, so you aren’t a completely lost cause. For example, you know enough to single out the 2005 hurricane season, because as regular readers here know, hurricanes are most definitely on the decrease. See here:

As regards why people say the temperature has been mostly flat for the past decade or so, it’s probably because rather than listen to pro Global Warming pundits, propagandists, and scaremongers they look to the people who are actually sharing their temperature data, for example the University of Alabama’s Dr Roy Spencer’s satellite records:

I’m really sorry, Chris, because if you do stick around you are going to encounter a lot of information which will conflict with your cherished beliefs about Global Warming. All being well you’ll be able to cope with it, but the anger you are going to feel over the next days and weeks as you gradually come to realise you’ve been lied to for the past couple of decades is going to be quite uncomfortable, to say the least.

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 7:44 am
You people are crazy. All of these non science guys are funded by oil companies.

Chris Martin says:
June 30, 2011 at 11:51 am
…I believe James Hansen when he tells us we’re in dire position. He doesn’t hold the position at NASA that he does for no reason.
====================================================================
Chris, you can’t have it both ways. First you trash all the oil funded non-science guys (you know who you are!) and then you swing around to defend James Hansen, who because he works for NASA is correct about global warming.

Nice work Chris. /sarc

There are a lot of educated people in the world who are wrong. Maybe a few of them work at NASA. Didn’t they bounce a satellite off the surface of Mars? Or did they do that on purpose?

Also, let’s remember this is the same NYT that exposed the completely legal terrorist-finance-tracking SWIFT program, as well as CIA flights, and numerous other secrets of national security… all in the name of The Public’s Right to Know.

Easier solution. Make it illegal for ANY taxpayer money to mingle with an organization that does NOT follow the FOIA rules. Any organization that violates or stonewalls FOIA is subject to the immediate incarceration of it’s board of directors until such time as the violation is remedied.

This ought to be applied to the FED, the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc…heck, applying to congress would be a start.

Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80’s and that’s what we have experienced that time.

Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.

Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80′s and that’s what we have
experienced that time.
=====================================================================
Good, so you are familiar with Hansen’s three predictions, and conditions for those predictions…
…A, B, and C

Chris Martin seems to be yet another troll who doesn’t want this thread
to look at the AAAS message which tries to misrepresent legitimate FOI requests at
NASA for Hansen’s paperwork supposedly on file by law as a condition of
his employment and which NASA must make available for public inspection.
They imply the legal exercise of a citizen’s right to public information in this instance
must be some sort of character assassination in waiting.

In the same breath AAAS decries the FOI request for Mike Mann’s e-mails in the
University of Virginia servers, NOW ordered by the Prince County Circuit Court
judge to be turned over for in camera review with him, ATI, and University of Virginia
representatives as to the appropriatness and applicability of any exemptions the
University (not Mike Mann) might claim. According to AAAS this is not only
harassment, but also an attack on science.

The AAAS message then blends in rumored and spurious “death threats” for
their spin cycle.

The strange New York Times report of the AAAS Board of Directors letter, the
letter itself, the ATI response, and the general facts of the FOI requests that are
now in court are the topic of the thread. Don’t forget those twin rulings from the
ICO in Great Britian slapping down UEA and the Phil Jones crowd for FOI
request violations in withholding the CRUTEM3 data.

Chris Martin says:Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.

And we all know that the experts are never wrong, isn’t that right, Chris?

Why would I do that? From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else? His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80′s and that’s what we have experienced that time.

Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.
==================================================================

Chris, I have, and other people have shown you direct proof that Hansen was wrong. It doesn’t really matter how qualified one is, it matters if they are correct. But, if you insist on qualifications, I’d put Richard Lindzen’s against Hansen’s any day.

However, if one wishes to speak of hurricanes, typhoons and the like, there is no one superior to Dr. Maue. But, again, it isn’t about qualifications, it is about being correct.

Chris, just so you know, there are plenty of people here who hold very high qualifications themselves.
Also, I want to congratulate you, you are a first for me. I’ve never anyone that argued from the strength of their ignorance.

From what I see, Hansen is the most qualified person regarding the subject, so why do I need to bother with anyone else?

Well, sure. Have you ever heard of logical fallacies? One of them is called “Appeal to authority”. As I said earlier, you have to look at what people actually *say*, and whether it stands up to analysis. Think about your own area of expertise – and I have no idea what that might be, but let’s say, for the sake of the discussion, you are a mechanical engineer. Are you always correct? Infallibly? every decision you make; every idea you have; always spot on?

His models and predictions have been ahead of their time… He predicted advanced Global Warming in the 80′s and that’s what we have experienced that time.

And he predicted “advanced Global Cooling” in the 1970s, and we had that too.

Haven’t you noticed, by the way, that those who are so attached to Global Warming theory have stopped using the phrase “Global Warming”? They now say “Climate Change”, or talk about “Extreme waeather events”. Know why that is? It’s because Earth isn’t, actually, warming. It’s a classic bait-and-switch (google is your friend).

Sometimes you have to depend on the experts. That’s why I take my car to an expert to have it fixed instead of screwing it up worse myself. These days everyone tries to pretend they know it all.

I know nothing. I have some opinions – they are considered opinions, but experience tells me I will change those opinions in the light of better information. I’m never more than 99% confident of anything. But I am 99% confident that CAGW is a scam, possibly the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity.

On the bright side, it’s big money for those in the game, so anyone who wants to can make a packet just by saying their business is somehow green.

But Chris; don’t listen to me. Really. But – if you aren’t prepared to spend the time looking at the science – well, STFU.

Chris, I support your efforts 100% but I think your language is a bit legalese-obtuse for getting the stuff across to journalists, AAAS folks and environmentalists – remember they are trying hard to misunderstand you and to misrepresent your thoughts.

James Sexton wrote:
> Chris, I have, and other people have shown you direct proof that Hansen was wrong.

How is Hansen’s 1988 paper so wrong? His scenario B, the closest to reality, overshot an observed warming of 0.4 C by about current warming by about 0.3 C. But that scenario wasn’t the exact history of the last 23 years, either.

Besides, the calculation was done 23 yrs ago — computer power, modeling, and the science have all advanced since then. Part of the reason it has advanced is because people learn why models like Hansen’s overshot, and what new features and considerations need to be included.

And, how accurate does a model need to be, anyway? Even simple models predict significant warming. Has any model *ever* shown anything other than warming? If it did, could it be trusted, given that 275 ppm of CO2 creates about a 7 C greenhouse effect? Given that basic greenhouse effect, even with a logarithmic dependence, why shouldn’t it be expected that another 35% of CO2 would create a degree or so more warming? Why shouldn’t a doubling of CO2 be even more significant?

It just came out that Willie Soon has received $1M from the oil and coal industries in the last 10 yrs. Pat Michaels gets 40% of his funding from the oil industry. Singer has gotten such money too. Most though hide behind think tanks where the source of the money is hidden. Morano makes a quarter-million/yr — who is paying that? Conservative foundations are well-known as funders of such places. This has been reported on by Oreskes, Chris Mooney, and others.

Hey James Sexton, if Richard Lindzen’s qualifications are such a big deal why is his work been dismissed? Dessler’s finding to the effect that water vapor is a positive feedback falsifies the IRIS hypothesis, so I’m not sure I’d put too much faith on Lindzen here.

muchado95 wrote:The AAAS should be giving more information to the public if they perceive some kind of atmospheric threat to the Earth that needs to be corrected by science.

The AAAS has issued at least two strong statements on climate change that I’m aware of. (They’re easy to find.) And their leading journal, Science, has of course published mountains of scientific information, news, and editorials about the subject.

Anthony Watts wrote:Smokey makes a good point, where was Appell when 10:10 was exploding children?

You do realize that no actual children were exploded, right? It was a depiction. It was fiction. (That means it didn’t actually happen.) That’s in a different class from actual death threats made against real, living people.

REPLY: You do realize no people were actually killed by the supposed (but yet unsubstantiated) death threats right? The point stands, where was your denouncement?

Planning such an ugly thing like 10:10 did over months is equally bad IMHO. Of course you’ll disagree,and spin that to your benefit when you write up your thrashing. Oh, wait, you’ve already done it exactly as I predicted upstream in comments. Heh. But we aren’t going to play the game with you. So don’t bother to respond since we already have your MO down pat.

The next question is, will you have the courage to admit the death threat story is falling apart?

chris b wrote:On reading the AAAS statement I couldn’t help wondering if the AAAS Directors had actually read the Climategate emails regarding tampering with the “peer-review” process.

What tampering was done with the peer-review process? There was concern expressed in those emails, and communications with journal editors, about some paper’s correctness. This kind of communication has happened in science for as long as there have been journals. Read “Einstein’s Jury” by Jeffrey Crelinsten about the 1920s when experiments on Einstein’s predictions from general relativity were being done. There were cranks attacking from all directions, and scientists from renowned observatories doing the actual astronomical work were making their feelings known to colleagues, the media, professional associations and journal editors.

I posted a couple comments, but they’re held in a moderation queue, probably until morning. As a 40+ year subscriber, I’m not real pleased with her post. One comment invites her down to the ICCC tomorrow morning. (When the ICCC’s web site got up
to speed I sent Science News a note suggesting they cover it. I was a bit disappointed that I didn’t get a response.)

The federal government wastes more than $7 billion every year on “climate change” studies. Almost all of that money goes to climate alarmists. Just one alarmist scientist, Michael Mann, received more than $6 million over the past 10 years, including $1.8 million to study mosquito vectors. That was a payola, funneled to him right after Climate-gate.

Dr. Mann is not a biologist or an epidemiologist. He is an astronomer. If that payola was actually to study malaria, it would have gone to a malaria specialist. The corruption in climatology is caused by the excessive public grant money. AFAI am concerned, all grant monies should be eliminated across the board.

And the death threat emails are probably bogus. Show us a few of them with proof that they were sent. And explain why the police weren’t called to investigate the purported “death threats”:

How is Hansen’s 1988 paper so wrong? His scenario B, the closest to reality, overshot an observed warming of 0.4 C by about current warming by about 0.3 C. But that scenario wasn’t the exact history of the last 23 years, either.

Really? Ya know, a picture's worth a thousand words.

Don't forget that James Hansen says the "best" temperature data to use for comparison is somewhere between the station data and the land-ocean data.

So I don't really know what your garbeled English was meant to convey, but the observed temperature data are much closed to Scenario C (cold turkey cessation of ghg increase in 2000) than they are to Scenario B. What good is a projection that can't tell the the difference between such starkely different Scenarios?

Oh that's right, the party line is he just happened to overestimate the climate sensitivity by just a touch in 1988, but he's got it spot on this time.

I think that’s one of the reasons for the FOI requests……to find out what was meant by members of “the team” saying they would keep articles from passing peer review, even if it meant redefining the peer-review process, or words to that effect. Apparently data and emails have been deleted too.

Perhaps you should read some of the Climategate emails. They have convinced many that something is fishy in Denmark, so to speak.

Sure, climate change can kill people. But show me the evidence that anthropogenic climate change has killed anyone.

Meanwhile, the poor starve from the biofuel madness and die in many other ways from lack of cheap energy.

Also, @ 5:24 PM. I suggest you read the ‘Hockey Stick Illusion’ by Andrew Montford. If you really believe that peer review was not corrupted in climate science, you have fooled yourself.
==============

Thanks for the link to the death threat reports and bad habits story in
theConversation.edu.au by Clive Hamilton, Vice Chancellor’s Chair,
Centre for Applied Philosophy ans Public Ethics at the Charles Sturt
University. It’s wonderful when a University’s online campus newspaper
and a Public Ethics professor can garner such international attention.

“Claims prominent climate change scientists recently received death threats have been revealed as an oppotunistic ploy, with the Austrailian
National University admitting they occured up to five years ago.”

So, trolls will try to lead us off the track with stale (and maybe imaginary)
bread crumbs, ‘a Davy ?

Dessler’s finding to the effect that water vapor is a positive feedback falsifies the IRIS hypothesis,….

Of course, Bystander, “water vapor is a positive feedback” which increases atmospheric temperature. After all, that’s why it’s called a “ghg”, even by ipcc Climate Science, to begin with….although the same ipcc “Climate Science” seems somewhat hesitant to then admit what it admits – see the TAR, where water vapor as a ghg ~” is not discussed” – or to then explain how it must work as a ghg, according to its own “the physics” in our existing climate system…so that “water vapor is a ghg” along with CO2 and any other gas in the atmosphere which reacts with long wave electromagnetic energy and therefore possibly can produce a “positive feedback”.

Lindzen doesn’t deny that water vapor is a ghg. He only empirically calculates a different, lower “sensitivity” for CO2 “forcing”, which in turn might be relevant to any other mechanism explaining atmospheric temperatures, given the facts of his own empirical calculation. Therefore, his ideas are not falsified by the idea that “water vapor is a positive feedback”.

But, strangely in opposition to “the physics” of Climate Science, the fact that water vapor “is a ghg” and “is a positive feedback” is also why water vapor alone, or with even a minimal atmospheric CO2 concentration, if you like, should have already produced its own WVCGW runaway feedback in the same way that “the physics” of the allegedly CO2 = C[A]GW runaway dictates [or the GCM’s “forcing relative to CO2 doubling” works] especially because the latter relies critically upon water vapor functioning as a ghg itself [except when it, conveniently, doesn’t – that is, when “water vapor concentrations are solely dependent upon atmospheric temperature,” which in turn is allegedly not influenced by water vapor concentrations on the way up or down, and when water vapor in the atmosphere is, conveniently, without the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere].

But it didn’t! Water vapor did not produce a runaway on its own, even given its superior molecular function as a ghg and even given an essentially infinite supply for it existing in the Oceans.

Therefore, on this basis alone, something is wrong with “the physics” as expressed by the ipcc’s “Climate Science” Global Circulation Models. Water is not simply “a positive feedback”.

David, just what is the difference between Hansen’s paper being wrong and being “so” wrong?

Please explain, because your own alleged distinction between the two conditions thus far – according to the usual usage of the term, “so wrong” within the context you have supplied to date, in which you also ignore the manifest hate-speech of the AAAS and Climate Science as above – seemingly only allows for you to escape from reality once again, including an escape from the principles of real science; unless, of course, you can explain otherwise and thus separate “so” wrong from “wrong,, and therefore from the possibility of your own psychological denial of the empirical facts as compared to Hansen’s paper – regardless of whatever purpose someone, such as you?, might have.

You, after all, are the one with the “Creative Writing” degree, so against what reality is your “creative writing” compared?

lol, lay down to take a nap, and the trolls come out to play!!! Funny stuff, the easiest shortest one first.

@ Bystander who says:
Hey James Sexton, if Richard Lindzen’s qualifications are such a big deal why is his work been dismissed? Dessler’s finding to the effect that water vapor is a positive feedback falsifies the IRIS hypothesis, so I’m not sure I’d put too much faith on Lindzen here.
=================================================================
First, and foremost, why don’t you try and context what I was stating to Chris Martin. In fact, I stated qualifications don’t mean much. But, it was Martin that stated Hansen was the most qualified, clearly he is not. While I’m not prepared to state the Iris theory has been falsified, you can feel free to jump on the Dressler bandwagon if you wish. I’d go into more detail about it, but I just have an inkling that your understanding of either work is limited to talking points from some alarmist blog, and doesn’t have much to do with equating FOI requests to death threats. Try to stay relevant, and at least properly context the comments stated. Thanks.

@ David Appell who stated, “How is Hansen’s 1988 paper so wrong? His scenario B, the closest to reality, overshot an observed warming of 0.4 C by about current warming by about 0.3 C. But that scenario wasn’t the exact history of the last 23 years, either.”

You’re distinguishing between observed and current? lmao!! But, just so we can all understand what you are stating, his scenario B, is only close to reality in his projection of atmospheric CO2 content, not temp. Either 0.3 or 0.4 C off? No, he’s 0.5C off. But David, what is the total observed temp anomaly? I’m glad you asked. It’s 0.5C!!!! So, we can see that Hansen, and his covering of the board predictive prowess is off by %100. And yes, it took about 23 years for his lines to distinguish themselves from one another to definitively state, he was entirely incorrect. But, don’t believe me, you can look as Hansen’s statements yourself. Later, you state,

Besides, the calculation was done 23 yrs ago — computer power, modeling, and the science have all advanced since then. Part of the reason it has advanced is because people learn why models like Hansen’s overshot, and what new features and considerations need to be included.

Dave, I’m usually a pretty congenial guy, but, I’m so tired of a particular meme, about a subject that is dear to me, I may lose some of that congeniality. Computer power. Computer power? What sort of imbecilic response is that? You can get a machine built in the 90s, and a machine built today of the finest technology. Guess what? Any model fed in to either machine will render the same results. WTF? Do you think binary has somehow been revolutionized since its advent? The new “computer power” decreases the time necessary to render more wrong results. If the alarmists used older computers, they’d be wrong less often, because it would take the older computers longer to render the exact same results!!! What kind of person believes computers do something magical to idiotic models? Computers render the results they’re told to render. THERE IS NO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE!!! Now Dave, I know that may have sounded harsh, but please, don’t equate that with a death threat, to the contrary, its people like you that keep people like me employed. I thank you for your ignorance.

Now that we’re dispensed with that bit of lunacy, we can go on to other bits of sophistry. Computer models have gotten better? lol…. sure Dave, now show me one that has any predictive power. Show me one that hasn’t missed the temp by over 50%. I’m only looking for a doubling of proficiency. ….. given Moore’s law….. sorry, still a sore subject. More fun, and this is probably the funniest thing you’ve wrote in this thread…….lmao!!!…..what part of climate science advanced? Show me any significant change to the CAGW postulate. Just one. The fact is, the totalitarian, Malthusian misanthropists are stuck in stupid. The basic conjecture hasn’t changed one iota in the last 30 years. And it won’t. Climate science will advance only when the scientists quit assuming they are correct and seek to find why they are not correct.

Dave, I’ll let you in on a secret I’ve got. I’ve recently come to know some things that should stand part of this science on its ear. I know it. And, I can show how some assumptions being made about this particular bit of alarmism are made because the data they are assuming is incorrect, or at the very least the causation is incorrect. Again, I know this to be true. I’m pretty damned sure I can prove it. But, I’m not releasing it, yet. Why? Because it hasn’t undergone the necessary scrutiny. I need someone to look at it and show me why I’m wrong. I assume I’ve made an incorrect judgement at some point. I don’t assume I’m right. I assume I’m wrong. My understanding will advance one way or the other. If someone finds a significant flaw in my judgements, then I will have learned and move on. If no one does, it means the wrong people have looked at it or I may be correct. Until climatologists view their thoughts and science in this manner, it will never advance.

Lastly, you state, “And, how accurate does a model need to be, anyway? Even simple models predict significant warming. Has any model *ever* shown anything other than warming? If it did, could it be trusted, given that 275 ppm of CO2 creates about a 7 C greenhouse effect? Given that basic greenhouse effect, even with a logarithmic dependence, why shouldn’t it be expected that another 35% of CO2 would create a degree or so more warming? Why shouldn’t a doubling of CO2 be even more significant?”

David, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about your statement. The fact that the models are not accurate means the assumptions built into the models are incorrect. Are you really that daft? I’m not going to get into why this is wrong, other than to state, reality has shown the assumptions to be wrong. Given that the earth has cooled, in recent times with a constant or increase of atmospheric CO2 shows that the assumptions of causation were incorrect. But, that’s only because my understanding advances with time, while alarmists still cling to notions that were shown to be in error. And, no, I wasn’t speaking towards the most recent manifestation of cooling(this last decade), but rather the LIA. If CO2 @ 275 does cause 7C at a constant, explain the LIA.

Now Dave, I’m sure you’ll ignore every thing I’ve stated. But, I didn’t state it for your benefit. You are a lost cause. But, I do appreciate you giving me the opportunity to respond to some of the alarmist talking points you’ve presented to all of the other readers that may swing by. Thanks again,

John M said:
Really? Ya know, a picture’s worth a thousand words.
blathering….
John M, I applaud you for posting that particular chart, rather than the ones with the prediction shifted inappropriately higher up the y-axis that we often see around here.
===========================================================
lol, one is obviously manufactured, the other lifted directly from his work.

But more than that, you guys are defending something that even the author doesn’t defend. He admits its wrong. He states the models don’t correctly adjust for aerosols. But, you cling, still. Interesting behavior.

What part of “it’s closer to Scenario C than it is to Scenario B” don’t you understand?

John W, that is not the point. Scenario C didn’t happen and is therefore irrelevant now. Scenario B pretty much did happen, so that is what the prediction should be judged against. It looks on the chart you provided that he did a good job. That is also the mainstream take on it.

@James: Everyone knows the models aren’t perfect and don’t take into acount all the factors. That makes the fact that it got so close all the more remarkable. Maybe it is just “getting the right answer through the wrong means”, i.e. a coincidence, but maybe it is beause the factors that were taken into account turned out to be the major ones.

“David Appell says:
June 29, 2011 at 6:44 pm
It is stunning to see essentially no condemnation of the death threats here, and instead exuses and accusations (always anonymous, of course) that they are “political stunts” or that scientists are “playing the victim.”
___________________________________________________________________________

I cannot help but wonder: Did Mr. Appell even read the article? No death threats were made. The AAAS and the NYT *EQUATED* FOIA requests with death threats.

To help out those who either didn’t read the article or didn’t understand it, requests were made for government-funded, ‘climate-research’ organisations to release data they used in their research. Since they are [at least partially] government-funded, they are required by the Freedom of Information Act to release such information upon request. Beyond the legal aspects, in real science, data and methods are commonly shared so others can replicate experiments and attempt to duplicate results, which then helps confirm [or invalidate] the original researcher’s results.

For some inexplicable reason, ‘climate researchers’ who are working very hard to find any and all data that proves their pre-research conclusions (as stated by the IPCC, which is clarified by the qualifying, last few words of their mission statement: “understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”), feel that being asked to release their data is the same as having their lives threatened. The AAAS agrees completely, as does the NY Times. (Curiously, the NYT partially survives by information provided by FoIA requests–should they be prosecuted for death threats for each and every FoIA request they’ve made?).

Of course, the only people who would fear releasing their data would be those with something to hide. Proven fraud could result an termination of a career. Maybe it is a death threat after.

@ John B
Only in the mind of the most ardent believer can one say he got close. The earth’s temp has only risen barely more than 1/2 degree C. He predicted, with scenario B (our CO2 is) that it would be a full degree. He missed it by 100%!! That’s not close, that’s not even in the same ball park, in fact, that’s not even in this world. It only exists in the alternate reality of fervent believers. You people are hilarious.

But, being the generous sort that I am, and knowing this is a subjective argument, (even though there are statistical standards that this doesn’t even come close to) I’ll see if I can’t find similar “close” prognostications. Let’s see……. well here we have one……http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/06/employmentchart.jpg

After looking at that, the only question I have is whether Hansen is double dipping for this administration. Did he write the prognostication for the unemployment, too? And, do the true believer describe this as “close” to being correct?

“Monckton believes that climate science is a communist plot, promoted by the Hitler Youth. He also fantasies about his own history, claiming to be a member of the House of Lords and a Nobel Laureate, to have single-handedly won the Falklands War (he persuaded the British Army to use germ warfare on the “Argies”), and to have invented a cure for Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.”

David Appell, if you believe in this stuff then I feel very sad for you. As a science writer, show a little skepticism. If a politician, movie star, race car driver, CEO or mother with two children received death threats, the police would investigate. If police refuse to investigate death threats against climate scientists, as a climate scientist I would sue to organization I work for.
Don’t forget, climate scientists are people too.

Yeah, everything is fine boys! No man made global warming going on here….
============================================================
Chris, you really are new at this, aren’t you? First, while I’m more than happy to answer you point by point, it is common courtesy to stay relevant to the topic at hand, which in this case, is equating FOI requests with death threats.

Secondly, most, on either side of the discussion, don’t refer to yahoo news as authoritative. You may not believe this, but news people tend to exaggerate from time to time. (I’m telling you this for your own good, people will laugh.)

Lastly, I’d invite you to stick around. Its a bit slow around here lately, Anthony and many others are at a climate conference. But, there’s plenty of information to read and the commentators are of commendable intellect.

(BTW, skeptics come in many shapes and sizes. I’m one that cheers for a melted ice cap, I believe it would be most beneficial to mankind if it does.)

To repeat my “blather”, How could anyone look at that picture and NOT see that Hansen’s prediction for scenario B, the closest scenario to what actually happened, has been pretty darn close? Look at the whole chart, not just 2010.

Only an inveterate cherry picker could come to the conclusion you did. But the next five years will tell. See you in 2016.

You posted a bogus chart. Why bogus? Because of the “estimated” parameters. They deliberatly make Hansen’s totally wrong predictions seem almost correct; but they aren’t.

Here is a chart using actual data: click. As you yourself admitted, Scenario C is meaningless. Look at how wrong Hansen was in Scenarios A & B. A blindfolded monkey with a dart could have made a more accurate prediction.

if it weren’t for cherry-picked, fabricated propaganda, you wouldn’t have any argument at all. Hansen has been completely wrong. Deal with it.

if it weren’t for cherry-picked, fabricated propaganda, you wouldn’t have any argument at all. Hansen has been completely wrong. Deal with it.
================================================================
Well, only if you count being off by almost 100% as wrong………

1. I didn’t post the chart, John M (no relation), a skeptic I think, did. I merely commented on it. (OK, I reposted it later)

2. John M’s point was that the prediction was rubbish because observed temperatures are closer to C than B. At least you and I agree that C is irrelevant and the scenario B is one to look at.

3. Even on your chart, the scenario B prediction is looking pretty good until about 2002 (or maybe even 2005). You must admit that, surely?

4. The “hindcast” portion of John M’s chart shows validation of the model. “Predicting the past” may sound like an oxymoron, but it is widely used to validate models, not only in climate science. The main reason I liked his chart, it that the hindcast also puts the predictions in context.

5.We both know the last 5 years or so are an issue for AGW. We say it’s a short term aberration and the warming will resume because the radiative imbalance says it has to. You say “nonsense”. We’ll see. I said 5 more years of little or no warming and I will eat my AGW hat. What do you say?

You may notice that I don’t make predictions, about sea ice, temperature, or any similar WAG’s. What I am saying, and what I have always said, is that current temperatures and trends are indistinguishable from natural variability, and are well within past parameters. Therefore, Occam’s Razor says that we should accept the simplest and most obvious explanation: the current minor fluctuations are the result of natural variability. There is no contrary evidence, thus the null hypothesis stands, and there is no evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is harmful in any way.

But you look at normal variability and see climate doom. From my perspective, you look no different than one of Harold Camping’s followers, or Mrs Keech’s Seekers.

I think it was in Blazing Saddles where the Governor turns and says, “OH NO! Then how are we going to keep our phony baloney jobs!!??”
–
There’s going to be a lot of that going on in universities over the next couple years….

James Sexton wrote:Well, only if you count being off by almost 100% as wrong………

It’s easy to play number games — you could also say that Hansen predicted a 2011 temperature of 287.9 K, but it was observed to be 287.6 K, an error of 0.1% — but they’re not very useful. It was only a modeled scenario, after all, not reality. Isn’t a better question what would his 1988 model show if it was fed the exact {GHG, solar, volcanic, land use} history of the last 23 years? And what was learned from his model? Lots and lots of calculations in science were slightly wrong but necessary to lead to better calculations.

It’s easy to play number games — you could also say that Hansen predicted a 2011 temperature of 287.9 K, but it was observed to be 287.6 K, an error of 0.1%…

Sure, if you’re stupid enough to mix up relative and absolute numbers. And Hansen works with “anomalies,” not absolute temperatures.

You also got the math wrong. James Sexton referred to a 0.5°C difference. 1°C is equivalent to 1K yet you used only a 0.3K difference, only 67% of the specified value.

Also the offset between °C and K is 273.15. Thus your value of 287.6K is 14.4°C (round to even), 57.9°F. NOAA says the combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the 20th century was 14.8°C (58.6°F). Are you indicating that 2011 is running colder than the 20th century average? (Note: If complaining about the mixing of datasets, please supply the appropriate GISS absolute combined global land and ocean average surface temperatures.)

Again, how accurate does a model need to be?

If you’re going to argue the fate of all humanity is at stake, demand fundamental changes to human civilization, at a cost of hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars, I’d say the model better be pretty damn accurate, which would be far more accurate than the models Hansen has churned out.

Smokey said: But you look at normal variability and see climate doom. From my perspective, you look no different than one of Harold Camping’s followers, or Mrs Keech’s Seekers.

No, not at all. I look at the science, all of it taken together, and see a convincing argument that AGW is happening. The “cognitive dissonance” is all on your side. You are like creationists in the way that you cite one piece of science as evidence against another, while ignoring all the rest. As an example, when arctic sea ice was “recovering” in 2008, 2009, you cited it (maybe not you personally, Smokey) but now it seems to be on the way down again it is “not a good proxy”. And you will happily quote temperatures so far this year as being significant while saying that a satellite record from 1979 to present is “way too short”. I don’t know how you keep it up!

It’s amusing to see creative writer/agw religionist David get solid slam-backs for his ploys here. Having dealt with him on several occasions, it’s nice to see others deal so eloquently with the seagull. It’s been great fun! Thanks to all!

So what they’re saying is if you want more than the agreed scientific or political spoon fed “truth” you’re a terrorist………………..Cough up those FOIA’s and stop being crybabies, if you represent the truth you have nothing to fear………..

James Sexton wrote:Computer power? What sort of imbecilic response is that? You can get a machine built in the 90s, and a machine built today of the finest technology. Guess what? Any model fed in to either machine will render the same results.

It is not imbecilic at all. One can only do as much modeling as one’s computer will allow, if you want to get results back in a reasonable amount of time. Faster computers allow lower resolutions and the incorporation of more physical processes. There is a nice visual of this progress here:

Bruce Houston wrote:The federal government wastes more than $7 billion every year on “climate change” studies. Almost all of that money goes to climate alarmists.

Actually the vast majority of the money goes to technology, such as satellite systems. The rest goes to grant money to scientists (not “alarmists”) awarded via the peer-review process. About $99B in federal funds has been directed to climate technology and research in the last 10 years — not an unreasonable amount for what is arguably the most serious problem ever to face the long-term viability of the nation and the world.

Derek Sorensen wrote:Haven’t you noticed, by the way, that those who are so attached to Global Warming theory have stopped using the phrase “Global Warming”? They now say “Climate Change”, or talk abyout “Extreme waeather events”. Know why that is? It’s because Earth isn’t, actually, warming.

Actually not. Scientists have long used the term “climate change.” For example, the UNFCCC — the last two letters are for “climate change” — was founded in 1992. The IPCC — the last two letters are for “climate change” — issued its first report in 1990.

Everyone admits the globe is warming. Even notable skeptics like John Christy and Roy Spencer at UAH — you remember them, they made a major mistake in their analysis of satellite date that took years to resolve (to their credit, they eventually admitted their error) — write, at the end of their data table, that warming since 1979 is 0.14 deg C/decade (http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt).

David Appell is a crank who feels the need to nitpick the comments of posters more knowledgeable than he will ever be. Climate models cannot predict their way out of a wet paper bag. Not one single GCM predicted the flat to declining temperatures over the past decade. Climate models are trinkets intended to deceive gullible dupes like Appell, who has cast his lot with the liars, scoundrels and charlatans pushing the debunked catastrophic AGW canard, and he has no more credibility than they do.

There is zero proof, per the scientific method, of any global damage or harm due to the rise in [beneficial, harmless] CO2. None at all. Appell, like the rest of the purveyors of the climate alarmist scare, pretends that a tiny trace gas controls the climate. They are demonstrably wrong. The fact that Appell and his clown climate cronies are repeatedly debunked shows that their claims are cognitive dissonance-based pseudo-science.

Wake me when there are measurable, quantifiable, testable measurements showing verifiable global harm resulting specifically from the rise in CO2. Until then, Appell and his mendacious ilk are peddling pure hogwash.

Smokey wrote;
> Not one single GCM predicted the flat to declining temperatures over the past decade.

So?

Again, the question is, how accurate does a climate model need to be? Will it matter, in 50 years, that the first decade of the 2000s saw flat temperatures? That decade was already 0.2 C warmer than the previous decade. All of this isn’t about the warmth of a particular decade, whether it was flat or not — it’s that what the world will look like in 50-100-150 years. No one today cares about the decade 1900-1910, given what has happened since. No one in the future will care much about this decade.

This is all about the long-term consequences of our increasing CO2 emissions.

Alarmist Appell once again fails to produce any evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 is a problem. The entire “carbon” scare is based on pseudo-science, fueled by government grant money. It is no more scientific than Scientology. But it satisfies deluded cranks like Appell, who cling to unscientific juju just like Harold Camping’s true believers.

So you didn’t read the paper then? Just the abstract. So from one highly condensed paragraph your drew your conclusions, without even bothering to read the actual paper, consider the methods and data, and follow up with their references. That’s what you’re telling me?

And from just that you dismiss the entire study?

It takes days and (really) weeks to properly read and understand a scientific paper, especially one of this variety. You spent two minutes reading the abstract and yet think you know better than experts who spent months writing it.

Clearly you are an unserious person who is not interested in real discussion of the issues. Frankly, your opinion does not matter — you have not earned one.

Smokey wrote:
> Appell. like the rest of the mendacious purveyors of the climate alarmist scare,
> pretend that a tiny trace gas controls the climate.

You do not understand the science. No one says that CO2 solely “controls” the climate. They do say that a mere 275 ppm of it in the atmosphere accounts for about a 7 K greenhouse effect. And that another 35% of this “trace gas” has about a 1 K effect on the global average. And especially that doubling the amount of this trace gas has a ~ 3 K effect on globally average temperatures.

If 275 ppm CO2 has a 7 K greenhouse effect (this is easily calculated and easily measured), then why shouldn’t a doubling of that amount cause further warming, even with (as first-order theory predicts) a logarithmic dependence — enough to potentially be of concern and warrant further detailed investigation?

Appell has only his true belief system, which takes the place of rational thought. Most folks would look at the fact that CO2 has been rising steadily, and that the planet’s temperature has been flat to declining over the past decade and more, and rightly conclude that CO2 has little effect.

Empirical evidence shows conclusively that the effect of CO2 is negligible, therefore it can be disregarded for all practical purposes. But “carbon” is the demon in the religious cult of CAGW true believers, and it must be exorcised no matter what the cost to society.

Results further suggest that the lifetime of the surface air temperature anomaly might be as much as 60% longer than the lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 and that two-thirds of the maximum temperature anomaly will persist for longer than 10 000 yr. This suggests that the consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will persist for many millennia.

The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years.

Peer-reviewed Climate Science™ is warning us that the elevated temperatures resulting from anthropogenic CO2 emissions will persist for a millennium to much longer. Thus it is more than reasonable to expect a model to be able to accurately forecast the temperature for at least fifty years, for a start. Feel free to come back and inform us when a modern model has passed that validation test. Hindcasting by a “tweaked” model doesn’t count, nor does “updating” as time goes by, it has to be able to say what the temperature will be at a future time and it must be that temperature at that time.

Also, please explain the rationale behind the numbers you choose.

I only chose one number, James Sexton provided one, the rest came from you. You were obviously referring to surface air temperatures as you were talking about Hansen’s temperature prediction, which would be a global average number. On the GISTEMP data page it says of the “Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI)”:

Note: LOTI provides a more realistic representation of the global mean trends than dTs below; it slightly underestimates warming or cooling trends, since the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air causes a slower and diminished reaction to changes; dTs on the other hand overestimates trends, since it disregards most of the dampening effects of the oceans that cover about two thirds of the earth’s surface.

Thus for comparison to the numbers you provided, such a combined land-sea surface temperature number is desired, as ultimately trends are being discussed. But such does not appear to be available on the GISTEMP site as an absolute value. I searched for such, and NOAA had a 20th century average value, which I presented.

And your math is still wrong.

Also, keep in mind that, as we cannot predict our exact socioeconomic future, no model can be exact. (…)

The models say that if the CO2 emissions are this then at this time the temperature will be this amount. No socioeconomic factors apply.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:4. A prediction or an estimate of something in the future, based on present data or trends.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged:6. a prediction based on known evidence and observations

Thus a projection is a prediction in this context, unless you insist to the point of pedantry that the “or” of the first definition is a logical OR and a model “projection” is merely an “estimate of something in the future.” That would provide for a wonderful argument for an investment company to make in response to a Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry, “Our models are not providing predictions of future performance for our clients, they are only providing estimates of future performance.”

In what way did Hansen’s 1988 model project and not predict?

A very lousy way, as only half of the foretold increase materialized. With his work foretelling temperatures for many decades into the future, not being able to get it right for even two decades is rather awful. If we had immediately acted on the resulting recommendations for emissions reductions, when the current cool streak happened naturally it would have been cited as proof of the model’s predictive ability. Given the demonstrated inaccuracy of those 1988 prognostications and the high probability of a natural change appearing to be a validation, any model attempting such a prophesy must pass a high standard for accuracy which includes validation over a long period. Again, let us know when one has done that.

You do not understand the science. No one says that CO2 solely “controls” the climate. They do say that a mere 275 ppm of it in the atmosphere accounts for about a 7 K greenhouse effect. And that another 35% of this “trace gas” has about a 1 K effect on the global average. And especially that doubling the amount of this trace gas has a ~ 3 K effect on globally average temperatures.

Looks like you have muddled together the effect of CO2 and the effect of the feedback. After saying, “You do not understand the science.”

“Alarmist Appell once again fails to produce any evidence, per the scientific method, showing that CO2 is a problem. The entire “carbon” scare is based on pseudo-science, fueled by government grant money. It is no more scientific than Scientology. But it satisfies deluded cranks like Appell, who cling to unscientific juju just like Harold Camping’s true believers.”

David Appell produced a mountain of evidence: “The evidence is copious throughout the climate science literature and summarized in great depth in the IPCC 4AR.”

The evidence is out there but, for one reason or another, you discount it all. You have strange standards of evidence if you think all of mainstream science can be “debunked” by a couple of out of context graphs. I would change my mind if I saw some serious science that proposed an alternative explanation for observations, but cherry-picked graphs, blog posts and papers that simply criticise research won’t cut it.

David Falkner wrote:Looks like you have muddled together the effect of CO2 and the effect of the feedback.

Not including feedbacks would be akin to calculating the future value of an investment without considering that interest earned also itself earns interest. Over time that makes a substantial difference, and without it your calculation would give the wrong answer.

kadaka wrote:Thus it is more than reasonable to expect a model to be able to accurately forecast the temperature for at least fifty years, for a start.

Since no one can “accurately” predict the socioeconomic and energetic future of the world, a climate model will never have “accurate” data to work with. This is why the results of climate models are called “projections” and not “predictions.”

Given this, please tell me again how “accurate” a climate model’s projections have to be. How “accurate” must its hindcasting be? What about the element of chaos present in all complex nonlinear mathematical systems? It can never be eliminated, which is why ensemble averages are presented.

How does anyone make a policy decision about energy production, etc. in light of these inherent limitations in any climate model’s ability to predict the future climate?

Yes, but blindly assuming they will happen is also misleading. There is quite a lag issue in paleo records. Just curious, do you know what the ± is for the global average temperature quoted in the link up thread by NOAA?

Ok, not sure why you took two posts to respond and say the same thing, but since you are going with an analogy about interest, I will say that if you are going to state that you are a scientist, it is really up to you to realize that you account for the principal in one account and the interest in another. You certainly don’t squeeze them in together and not disclose it. Now, you can discount your investments to present value if you are locked into an interest rate, but if you have a variable interest rate that swings the payouts (in real dollars) up to 50% of the value of the principal on a daily basis, there isn’t really any point in trying. Instead, you take the value of the investment and run with it. Capiche?

kadaka wrote:The models say that if the CO2 emissions are this then at this time the temperature will be this amount.

How well did the CO2 function of time Hansen assumed compare to the actual record of CO2? What about other GHGs? Methane level did some funny things in the first decade of the 2000s, perhaps because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. What about other factors like land use changes? Volcanoes? Hansen assumed a few, but inevitably they come at different times and in different intensities. What about solar irradiance variations? What physical processes did Hansen have to leave out of his model that might have made a difference? The effect of contrails? Cow burps? Would his results have been different if his model grid resolution was 110 km as in the 4AR instead of Hansen’s 8 deg x 10 deg horizontal resolution? If more ocean and atmospheric levels were added? If the time steps were smaller?

There’s a lot more to it than just assuming some time function for CO2 emissions.

David Falkner wrote:do you know what the ± is for the global average temperature quoted in the link up thread by NOAA? … I mean, is the 20th century average 14.8°C ± 0? ± 10?

I don’t know off the top of my head, but I would guess it’s about ± 0.1 if they give the number to one digit after the decimal point. In any case, isn’t this why results for temperature anomalies are given and not absolute temperatures? Applications might need to know the absolute temperature and not just the anomaly, but that’s going to vary locally, of course (as, too, does the anomaly).

So you didn’t read the paper then? Just the abstract. So from one highly condensed paragraph your drew your conclusions, without even bothering to read the actual paper, consider the methods and data, and follow up with their references. That’s what you’re telling me?

And from just that you dismiss the entire study? […]”
======================================================
Fair enough, so I chased down tha paper and a brief excerpt from the opening (which follows below), and as near as I can make out, you didn’t read the paper either. (see bolded.) My question still stands; what else have ya’ got?

Excerpt“Uncertainty remains in attributing the expansion or resurgence
of diseases to climate change, owing to lack of long-term, high-quality data sets as well as the large influence of socio-economic factors and changes in immunity and drug resistance. Here we review the growing evidence that climate–health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change and that the
warming trend over recent decades has already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality in many regions of the world. Potentially vulnerable regions include the temperate latitudes, which are projected to warm disproportionately, the regions around the Pacific and Indian oceans that are currently subjected to large rainfall variability due to the El Nin˜o/Southern Oscillation sub-Saharan Africa and sprawling cities where the urban heat island effect could intensify extreme climatic events. […]”

Again, too many maybe, could might, based on projections, etc. David, you chose poorly to back your case.

Where is the evidence? Show me the bodies of those actually killed by climate change and not killed by weather. What else have ya’ got?

I don’t know off the top of my head, but I would guess it’s about ± 0.1 if they give the number to one digit after the decimal point. In any case, isn’t this why results for temperature anomalies are given and not absolute temperatures? Applications might need to know the absolute temperature and not just the anomaly, but that’s going to vary locally, of course (as, too, does the anomaly).

You would guess? 0.1 doesn’t seem very reasonable. Especially given the siting issues detailed here.

k.d. wrote:Again, too many maybe, could might, based on projections, etc. David, you chose poorly to back your case.

Yes, science, especially this kind, is full of uncertainties. And scientists are very honest about what those uncertainties are, hence the conservative language in the way they write papers. Very few things in science are known without any uncertainty. They stated their evidence and methods, they stated their results, and they stated their uncertainty. Until you can do better it is feckless to dismiss it completely because there are uncertainties–uncertainties cut both ways, and for all you know the situation could be worse than they claim as likely as better.

David Falkner wrote:Instead, you take the value of the investment and run with it.

It’s an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. To me it makes no sense to talk about the effects of doubling CO2 without including the effect of the secondary effects created. It seems to come down to semantics and I’m not interested in quibbling about that.

Smokey wrote:Most folks would look at the fact that CO2 has been rising steadily, and that the planet’s temperature has been flat to declining over the past decade and more, and rightly conclude that CO2 has little effect.

Most people might, but climate scientists don’t. They are well aware that many factors determine climate. They’ve never said or implied that temperature increases monotonically with CO2 level. There are other factors that have been notable in recent years — a slight decline in solar irradiance, phase changes in ocean cycles (esp the NAO), etc. The concerns about CO2 are for the long-term — the coming decades, 2050, 2100, etc. — not the last 5 years.

You are not accurately portraying the science.

REPLY: Oh puhleeze. Don’t whine about accuracy when you put up rubbish like this, then don’t have the nads to respond to the question.

We are still waiting for you to point out the valid death threats. Sorry, the repackaged ones from 5 years ago don’t count.

Since you’ve been beating us up over this, but have not responded to the questions, you need to show a list of current credible death threats or post an apology. This is required for you to continue to comment here Mr. Appell. Put up or shut up time. – Anthony Watts

Yes, but blindly assuming they will happen is also misleading. There is quite a lag issue in paleo records. Just curious, do you know what the ± is for the global average temperature quoted in the link up thread by NOAA?

Both this study and Folland et al. (2001, 2001b) indicate warming of about 0.6°C over the twentieth century. However, our uncertainty estimate for the warming is ±0.3°C, slightly large than their estimate of ±0.2°C.

Thus as mentioned just before that in the same paragraph, 20th century warming could have been anywhere from 0.3 to 0.9°C. Since the amount of global warming is only known to ±0.3°C, I would not expect the average global temperature of the same period to be any more accurate than that.

I would change my mind if I saw some serious science that proposed an alternative explanation for observations, but cherry-picked graphs, blog posts and papers that simply criticise research won’t cut it.

That the observations are within natural variability is not enough, you need an alternative explanation to the “CO2=AGW” proposal? Okay.

A recent observation strikingly showed that global warming from 1950 to 2000 was most likely caused by the significant increase of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the Earth atmosphere (Lu, 2010). (…) The results strength the conclusion that humans were responsible for global warming in late 20th century, but CFCs, rather than CO2, were the major culprit; a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.

Read the 2nd paper. Clearly CO2 cannot explain the recent warming as well as CFCs can. As stated in the last lines of the Concluding Remarks:

But it does show that the warming effect of CO2 and other non-CFC gases had most likely saturated and CFCs and HCFCs could account for global warming observed in the late 20th century. A long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.

Very convincing work. If you need an alternative explanation, finding natural variation insufficient, this is a very good one. So will you now be changing your mind as you said you would?

The average temperature is, itself, a statistic that should have uncertainty associated with it, so wouldn’t having a 0.3C uncertainty associated with the original point estimate screw up the process of calculating the anomaly?

Re Hansen’s Scenario C, the mantra in some circles seems to be that Scenario C “didn’t happen” so “it doesn’t matter”.

The fact that the temperature record can’t validate either Scenario B (which supposedly “did happen”) and Scenario C (which “didn’t happen”) doesn’t say much for the falsifiability of his hypothesis, does it?

But I guess that’s good enough for climate science, where good enough is…well…good enough.

(June 30, 2011 at 4:45 pm David Appell says): “It just came out that Willie Soon has received $1M from the oil and coal industries… Singer has gotten such money too…. This has been reported on by Oreskes, Chris Mooney, and others.”

Oreskes, Mooney, and others source this basic fossil fuel funding accusation from a single person, anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan. He, along with all the others relying on his central piece of ‘evidence’ supporting an otherwise vague guilt-by-association accusation, never show it in its full context. That would be the 1991 coal industry memo I mentioned in my June 25th guest post here, “The End is Near for Faith in AGW” https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/the-end-is-near-for-faith-in-agw/

Development of a Northern Hemisphere Gridded Precipitation Dataset Spanning the Past Half Millennium for Analyzing Interannual and Longer-Term Variability in the Monsoons, $250,000

Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, $1,884,991 [Note: this grant was payola, pure and simple. If someone wanted a study of mosquito vectors, they would have gone to a biologist or an epidemiologist – not to a debunked astronomer and pretend climatologist. This particular bribe was paid on the heels of the Climategate leak to show support for the despicable Michael Mann. And where is the “study” that $1.8 million supposedly bought?]

Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, $541,184

A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, $330,000